 |
 |
This is from Diana Kloss book of Law - sorry trying. To answer and copy and paste from phone!!! 3.4 The consent of the patient This may, strictly speaking, be given orally, but for the protection of the doctor and the nurse it should always, if possible, be obtained in writing. Where a patient has authorised disclosure to a third party, he may not appreciate that his full medical records over a number of years may be produced, so that the OH physician or nurse should clarify with him the extent to which he is willing to authorise disclosure. However, it would be wrong for a physician to allow the patient to offer misleading evidence by presenting an incomplete picture. The employee who is claiming damages for noise-induced hearing loss and who authorises the doctor to disclose to his solicitors the results of audiograms, while asking him to suppress notes of conversations with the patient about the dangers of his part-time job in a disco, should be told that all matters relevant to deafness must be included, or, alternatively, that no disclosure will be made. Where a worker refuses to give consent to a report of any kind being given to management, it is clear that the occupational health professional will be precluded from disclosing clinical information, but a simple statement that theworker is fit or unfit to do the job may be permissible, first because it may be needed to protect the employer and third parties against possible harm, and second because it is a statement of opinion only and does not involve any breach of confidence. This view is contested by some doctors as a breach of the ethical duty not to report without consent and is the subject of ongoing debate. In the past it was unclear whether the common law duty of confidence survived the patient, though the professional bodies advised that the ethical duty did. The Data Protection Act 1998 applies only to the processing of personal data of living individuals. In Bluck v. Information Commissioner (2007) the Information Tribunal reviewed a Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner that the health records of Karen Davies, the appellant’s daughter, held by the NHS Trust hospital in which she died, were confidential and therefore should not be revealed to her mother under the Freedom of Information Act. Section 41 of the Act includes an exemption for information obtained in confidence. Mrs Davies’s husband was her executor and had refused consent to the disclosure of the records to Mrs Bluck. Under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 only the executor or administrator of the deceased, or a person having a legal claim arising from her death, are entitled to access.Tribunal held that the duty of confidence survived the death of the patient and that the hospital should not disclose her medical records to her mother. Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Apr 2018, at 06:55, Donna Price <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I’ve recently done a management referral for a scaffolder who fell backwards on to his back while working on loose rubble. He carried in working for a couple of hours then went to his go following week after the weekend. Had X-ray no boney injury. This was June last year and has been off since. He has got solicitor involved. I’ve asked for dr and go feedback to assess fitness for work but apparently he has refused consent. I am being asked when can they expect him back to work and scaffolding duties. > > Have I missed something? > > Thank you. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > Sent from my iPhone > ******************************** > Please remove this footer before replying. > > OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html > > CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH ******************************** Please remove this footer before replying. OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH